The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of

Management Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Undergraduates’ satisfaction and perceptions of learning outcomes

T
across teacher- and learner-focused pedagogies
Petra Garnjosta,∗, Leanna Lawterb
a
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes, Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Campus Rotenbühl, Waldhausweg 14, 66123,
Saarbrücken, Germany
b
Welch College of Business, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Avenue, Fairfield, CT, 06825, United States

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: With the marketisation of higher education, student satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes
Problem based learning have become popular measures of the quality of education. Significant pressure is placed on
Project based learning faculty to increase these measures by delivering engaging and effective classes. The current study
Service learning compares four different learner-focused pedagogies (problem based, service learning, flipped
Flipped classroom
classroom, and project based) to lecture (teacher-focused pedagogy) with regard to student sa-
Perceived learning outcomes
Student satisfaction
tisfaction and perceived learning outcomes. Undergraduate business students from a northeastern
university in the U.S. assessed their learning on four outcomes: knowledge acquisition, problem
solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning, as well as their overall satisfaction with a
particular pedagogy. Of the four learner-focused pedagogies, only project based learning was
perceived to have a significant impact on problem solving and knowledge acquisition as com-
pared to lecture. Project based learning did not significantly impact critical thinking or self-
directed learning compared to lecture. There were no significant differences in perceived learning
outcomes between all other pedagogies compared to lecture. Additionally, students indicated no
significant differences in satisfaction across lecture, problem based learning, service learning, and
flipped classroom. Student satisfaction was significantly higher with project based learning.

1. Introduction

In an increasingly competitive global higher education market, a key paradigm shift in higher education has been to view the
“student as consumer”. As funding has diminished and costs have risen, universities compete for students by marketing their in-
stitutions to students based on experiences and educational outcomes (Orîndaru, 2015). With the shift towards marketisation of
higher education, students have an increased expectation that a university degree will ultimately result in graduating with em-
ployable skills and good job placement (Carlson, 2013; Nixon, Scullion, & Hearn, 2018). One of the outcomes of the instrumentality
of the educational process is more of a focus on the assurance of high quality learning outcomes (Hall, Swart, & Duncan, 2012) and
student satisfaction with the educational experience (DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005). This in turn has led to pressure on faculty to
be “student/customer-oriented”. Faculty are expected to develop interesting and engaging learner-focused classes without com-
promising rigor while at the same time meeting or exceeding learning outcome goals (Sorcinelli, 2007). In this highly marketised
environment, quality of teaching is assessed by student self-reports of satisfaction with faculty and courses and perceived learning
outcomes directly related to a particular course (Judson & Taylor, 2014).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: petra.garnjost@htwsaar.de (P. Garnjost), lawterl@sacredheart.edu (L. Lawter).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.004
Received 20 November 2017; Received in revised form 18 January 2019; Accepted 20 March 2019
1472-8117/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

Learner-focused pedagogies have been viewed as “the answer” to the double-sided pressure to be both engaging and to be more
effective in impacting perceived learning outcomes. The expectation among both faculty and administration is that learner-focus
pedagogies (problem based learning, project based learning, flipped classroom, and service learning) are far superior to teacher-
focused pedagogies (lecture) on both impacting perceived learning outcomes and student satisfaction. The purpose of this paper is to
examine whether students perceive learner-focused pedagogies as being better than teacher-focused pedagogies with regard to
perceived learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

2. Literature review

2.1. The impact of marketisation on measures of teaching effectiveness

In the last two decades higher education institutions have been under a number of pressures which have transformed the edu-
cational model for universities globally from one of the intellectual model (rooted in intellectual growth) to the consumer model
(rooted in the commoditization of education) (O'Byrne & Bond, 2014). In what has been called the “perfect storm” (Selingo, 2015, p.
4), universities are under financial, technological, political, and market pressures to graduate students who are productive and
employable. The marketisation of higher education has resulted in more and more students viewing a university degree as means to a
good job and a high salary (Nixon et al., 2018). Students see the primary function of universities to prepare them for the job force by
offering experiences aside from the traditional classroom experiences with the focus on experiential learning and skill development
(Molesworth, Nixon, & Scullion, 2009; Selingo, 2015). With thousands of choices in higher education, universities struggle to dif-
ferentiate themselves and to attract students.). In response to increased competition in the higher educational market, universities
rely on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction with their learning experiences as a means of market
differentiation (Orîndaru, 2015; Judson & Taylor, 2014; Hall et al., 2012).
The marketisation of universities has put increasing pressure on faculty to develop courses which are engaging and are perceived
by students to be effective in helping them develop employable skills. This has resulted in a transition away from teacher-focused
pedagogies, where more emphasis is placed on knowledge transfer, to learner-focused pedagogies, where more emphasis is placed on
skill development and co-learning (Judson & Taylor, 2014; Tomlinson, 2017). Two primary challenges faculty face in this en-
vironment are: 1) using more engaging pedagogies and 2) teaching students marketable skills. There is pressure from both their
institutions and students that a variety of pedagogies should be offered in their classes. This means no longer using lecture or teacher-
focused pedagogies, and instead adopting learner-focused pedagogies, such as problem based learning, project based learning, flipped
classrooms, and service learning. In addition, faculty are challenged to develop learning assignments that are perceived to visibly
improve student learning (Sorcinelli, 2007).

2.2. Teacher-focused pedagogy versus learner-focused pedagogy

Teacher-focused pedagogy is typically represented as a lecture based learning environment, characterized by large classes, in-
structor driven content, and soliloquy based deliveries within a curriculum which compartmentalizes the content (Barrows, 2002).
This learning environment provides sequential learning, progressing from basic scientific concepts to examples of practical appli-
cation (Beachey, 2007). Student learning is measured by exams passed that replicate problems and solution in the provided materials
(Kuruganti, Needham, & Zundel, 2012). According to Gruber, Mandl, and Renkl (1999), such strictly teacher-focused learning en-
vironments often lead to students acquiring inert knowledge—students acquire the knowledge but cannot use it to solve larger,
complex, practical problems.
Learner-focused pedagogy creates a different learning environment. The emphasis in the classroom is utilizing interdisciplinary
knowledge to solve issues or problems where the student integrates knowledge acquisition with applied learning. For example,
problem based learning does not start with covering specific applicable content, but with an ill-defined problem of practical relevance
given by the faculty member (Barrows, 2002). The problem is messy and designed to facilitate realistic application of the content. The
problems normally have more than one possible solution and require students to stretch their skills and use knowledge acquired from
other courses (Savery, 2006). Free inquiry and dialogue are imperative to the problem based learning process, and faculty members
are facilitators. They are not the source of all knowledge or the organizer of the learning experience (Garnjost & Brown, 2018).
Project based learning is similar to problem based learning in that it also involves using assignments that are of practical re-
levance. Students are given a complex, practical problem and must formulate solutions using interdisciplinary knowledge. One of the
major differences between problem based learning and project based learning is the intended learning outcome. While problem based
learning focuses on acquiring knowledge, project based learning focuses on the application or integration of knowledge. The em-
phasis of the learning experience is on completing the project through application of previously acquired knowledge as opposed to
problem based learning where completion of the problem may be less important than the knowledge gained in how to obtain it
(Prince & Felder, 2006).
The flipped classroom is a pedagogical method, which combines teacher-focused instruction with learner-focused learning. Lage
and his colleagues define it as what “has traditionally taken place inside the classroom now takes place outside the classroom and vice
versa” (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000, p. 32). According to Tucker (2012), there is no one model of a flipped classroom, but all flipped
classrooms work around the same idea. Teacher-focused instructions or interactive lessons using new technologies such as videos or
other online tools are available for the students at their own disposal and prior to the class session. Class time is dedicated to active,
group-based problem-solving activities which facilitates rethinking all aspects of prior knowledge (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013).

268
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

The philosophy behind a flipped classroom is “that it allows the instructors to teach both content and process” (Findlay-Thompson &
Mombourquette, 2014, p. 63). A flipped classroom combines disparate learning theories (such as problem based learning and lecture)
to create a pedagogy which builds on both constructivist learning theories which promote active learning and direct instruction
methodology where the student is told how to behave (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).
Service learning is a “course-based, credit bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service
activity that meets identified community needs, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding
of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility” (Bringle
& Hatcher, 2009, p. 38). From a methodological point of view, service learning is a mainly student-centered pedagogy with roots in
experiential education (Furco, 1996). The intent is to encourage civic responsibility of the learner through their willingness to
contribute to their communities, many times through service volunteer programs (Speck, 2001). The critical reflection of the learning
experience is crucial, as it relates the experience to the course content and intended learning outcomes, but also to an individual's
perspective, such as professional and personal values as well as more general subjects, e.g. social justice (Dary, Prueter, Grinde,
Grobschmidt, & Evers, 2010).
The commonality of the learner-focused pedagogies is that all provide a learning environment which is composed of practical
relevant problems. For problem based learning it is the ill-structured problem; for project based learning it is the more complex
project which in general includes several problems; for flipped classrooms it is the instructor facilitated problem-solving activities;
and for service learning it is the problem or project in cooperation with a community partner. Further, problem based learning,
project based learning, flipped classes and service learning are methodologies based on constructivist pedagogy where the outcome is
no longer about having knowledge and transmitting knowledge but instead is about creating knowledge though the construction of
knowledge (Beachey, 2007; Tynjälä, 1999).

2.3. Assessing teaching effectiveness in a marketised environment

Students increasingly perceive effective teaching in a business curriculum as the transference of marketable job skills that increase
employability. The media promotes a number of job skills that employers expect new business graduates entering the workforce (Hart
Research Associates, 2015). Students are expected to have a broad range of knowledge which they can successfully apply to projects
and problems (PayScale.com, 2016; Hart Research Associates, 2015). Across a number of studies, specific job knowledge, critical
thinking, and problem solving are ranked as top skills as well for graduates (PayScale.com, 2016; Hart Research Associates, 2015;
Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006).
As students evaluate their educational alternatives, there is increased expectations that universities will deliver on preparing
students to enter the workforce. However, in a marketised university, teaching effectiveness is evaluated based on student percep-
tions instead of objective measures such as cumulative grade point average. Student evaluations are the basis for assessing the quality
and effectiveness of faculty teaching primarily through student perceptions of learning outcomes and student satisfaction. Students
expect to become more proficient in four key learning outcomes identified as important to employers: knowledge acquisition, pro-
blem solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. For this study, we assessed student perceptions of these four learning
outcomes across the different pedagogies to determine if one pedagogy was better at delivering what students expect from a business
education.

2.4. Perceived learning outcomes of learner-centered pedagogies

During the last decade, there was an increase in use of learner-centered pedagogies in science and medical program curriculums,
and to a smaller extent in business programs. Although a number of studies have investigated the impact of these pedagogies on
learning outcomes using objective measures, the number of surveys analyzing students' perception of learning outcomes in business
related courses is limited. Students’ perceptions of learning outcomes are typically measure using self-reported outcomes and have
been found to have a strong relationship with their overall satisfaction with a course (Duque, 2014).

2.4.1. Knowledge acquisition

Knowledge acquisition is defined as remembering content of the class, having understood content of the class, applying content of
the class to a new problem, analyzing a new problem, evaluating a new problem (Krathwohl, 2002). While teacher-focused pedagogy
relies heavily on remembering and understanding course content, learner-focused pedagogies also require students to apply the
course content to analyze and evaluate a problem. (Hmelo & Ferrari, 1997).
In business education, Bamford, Karjalainen & Jenavs (2012) found that students perceive a higher level of skills and knowledge
acquisition in a problem based learning Operations Management class (n = 60). Findlay-Thompson and Mombourquette (2014)
flipped one undergraduate introductory business class and compared it with two traditionally lectured introductory business classes.
Although there was no difference in grades, students perceived, “that they did better in the flipped classroom” (Findlay-Thompson &
Mombourquette, 2014, p. 69). Nihlawi, El-Baz, & Gunn (2017) found similar results for undergraduate math classes taught in a
flipped format (62 students) compared with a regular lecture format (n = 117), as students perceive the knowledge acquisition
through reflection was enhanced in a flipped classroom in comparison to a lecture based class. In a meta-analysis of more than 40
surveys between 1993 and 2010 on the impact of service learning on learning outcomes, Yorio and Ye (2012) found that service
learning pedagogy had a positive impact on business students’ understanding of social issues.

269
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

Hypothesis 1. Student knowledge acquisition will be higher with learner-focused teaching styles than teacher-focused teaching style.

2.4.2. Problem solving

Problem solving is defined as being situationally specific. Problem solving entails identifying the problem, analyzing possible
outcomes, and implementing a solution (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Problem solving within teacher-focused pedagogies ty-
pically focuses on solving problems from homework or cases as ancillary learning to lecture. Learner-focused pedagogies, on the other
hand, encourage both individual and team problem solving by making the problem the focus of the learning environment, where
learning occurs from the problem definition, analysis steps, and reflecting on students’ experiences (Stork, Woodilla, & Brown, 2009).
According to Stanley and Marsden (2012), more than 400 students of capstone courses in accounting between 2006 and 2009 were
taught with problem based learning method and perceived this method as improving their ability to deal with unstructured problems
and problems based on incomplete facts. They also found that “problem based learning results in better problem solving skills, as
students agreed that they were now more comfortable dealing with unstructured problems” (Stanley & Marsden, 2012, p. 286).
Hypothesis 2. Student problem solving skills will be higher with learner-focused teaching styles than teacher-focused teaching style

2.4.3. Critical thinking

Critical thinking is a reflective process that focuses on looking at problems from different perspectives. Key components of critical
thinking are identifying my own and others assumptions, identifying contextual factors, reflecting on the complexity of an issue
particularly with regard to others’ beliefs, and developing a collaborative solution (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Typically
teacher-focused pedagogies incorporate critical thinking into assignments such as case analysis or student research as part of an-
swering a question. Learner-focused pedagogies rely more on interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledge, reflection, and negotiation of
collaborative solutions as part of the learning process.
In a math course taught in a flipped classroom (n = 62) students perceived enhanced critical thinking skills in comparison to their
peers taught in a lecture based course (n = 117) (Nihlawi et al., 2017). There is further evidence of a large survey for service learning
(n = 2317) which include accounting and management classes, that this method increases critical thinking from the perception of
instructors, but also based on students' perceptions (Prentice & Robinson, 2010).
Hypothesis 3. Student critical thinking will be higher with learner-focused teaching styles than teacher-focused teaching style.

2.4.4. Self-directed learning

Self-directed learning is a process by which individuals take the initiative, with or without the assistance of others, in diagnosing
their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identify human and material resources for learning, choosing and implement ap-
propriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.” (Knowles, 1975, p. 18). Both teacher-focused pedagogies and
learner-focused pedagogies require self-directed learning in order to successfully learn and complete course requirements. As learner-
focused pedagogies require students to acquire knowledge outside of the classroom as part of the active learning process, students
must engage in more self-directed learning in order to solve and complete projects. Gallagher and McGorry (2015) examined a service
learning project which was part of a capstone experience for business students. Students (n = 185) participated in the survey and
perceived an increase in personal responsibility, leadership development, and communication skills.
Hypothesis 4. Student self-directed learning will be higher with learner-focused teaching styles than teacher-focused teaching style.

2.5. Student satisfaction

In addition to learning outcomes, student satisfaction has emerged as an important metric for higher education. Student sa-
tisfaction is the subjective assessment of the overall experiences and outcomes with the college experience (Elliott & Shin, 2002), and
is often used as a metric to improve student experiences, particularly with regard to courses, faculty, and programs. Along with
perceived learning outcomes, student satisfaction is seen an important measure of whether student learning expectations have been
fulfilled. Student satisfaction is often equated with students perceiving that their overall experience was positive and that their
learning experience was entertaining (Mark, 2013). A number of studies have identified multiple factors which impact student
satisfaction including perceptions of quality of education, perceptions of acquired learning outcomes (Duque, 2014; Gibson, 2010), as
well as the amount and quality of professor-student interactions will impact student satisfaction (Johnson, Cascio, & Massiah, 2014).
Hypothesis 5. Students will be more satisfied with learner-focused teaching styles than teacher-focused teaching style.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

A sample of fifteen undergraduate management classes at a northeastern U.S. university was selected for inclusion in the study
based on pedagogy as identified by the faculty teaching the class. Students in these classes were then ask to participate in a survey on

270
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

perceptions of learning outcomes and satisfaction. Four-hundred and five students were invited to participate in the study via email
which included a link to an online survey administered by Qualtrics. The survey consisted of three parts—questions on satisfaction
with learning outcomes, questions on perceived learning outcomes of different pedagogies they had experienced, and demographic
questions. Students were asked to rate their perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction for the pedagogies which they had ex-
perienced.
A total of 303 students responded to the survey with complete data. Participants were 65.8% male. The class standing of the
participants was 44.5% freshmen, 19.3% sophomores, 18.6% juniors, and 17.3% seniors. Most students were under 21 years of age
(71.2%). By major, student were 34.4% marketing and sports management major, 23.4% management, 19.7% finance and eco-
nomics, 13% accounting, and 8.4% undecided business. Average cumulative grade point average was 3.44 on a 4.0 scale.
All participants had attended a lecture class. Of the 303 students, 34.7% had experience with problem based learning environ-
ment, 26.1% had experience with service learning environment, 38.6% had experience with flipped classrooms, and 74.9% had
experience with project based learning environment.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Definition of pedagogies

Teacher-focused pedagogy was represented by a lecture learning environment (Barrows, 2002), and was defined in the survey as:
“In a lecture based class, the content is mainly presented by the instructor. Students work on exercises or cases with clear defined
problems and questions related to the content presented in class”.
Learner-focused pedagogies were represent by four different learning environments: problem based learning, service learning,
flipped classroom, and project based learning. Problem based learning was defined in the survey as: “In problem based learning
classes, small student teams have to define and solve unstructured real world business problems of nonprofit or for-profit organi-
zations. Instructors facilitate the groups by asking questions, but not by defining knowledge gaps, learning goals, or by providing
lectures.” A flipped classroom was defined as a class “where the content was available for self-study (short video lectures, reading
material, and practice problems as homework) before class session, and the time in-class devoted to active, group-based problem
solving activities (team exercises, team projects, or discussions).” Service learning was defined in the survey as “course integrated in
the curriculum that integrates community service with instruction and critical reflection to relate the experience with learning
objectives and outcomes, and students’ personal values and perceptions”. Lastly, project based learning was defined in the survey as:
“a class where the instructor provides content through lectures and student teams apply the concepts in structured, real world
problems”.

3.2.2. Perceived learning outcomes

Problem solving and critical thinking were measured using the six item scales from the VALUE Rubrics from the Association of
American Colleges and Universities (https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/). The VALUE rubrics provide an approach to assess
learning outcomes of the skill sets mentioned above. These rubrics have demonstrated strong reliability and validity (Rhodes, 2010).
Reliability measured by Cronbach's alpha were 0.896 for problem solving and 0.892 for critical thinking.
Knowledge acquisition was measured using a newly developed scale (Garnjost & Brown, 2018) based on items from the cognitive
domain of Bloom's Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Five items measure ability to recall, understand, apply, analyze, synthesize and
evaluate. The Cronbach's alpha for the current study was 0.922.
Self-directed learning was measured using a newly developed scale consisting of five items (Garnjost & Brown, 2018). The items
were developed using Knowles (1975) definition of self-directed learning. Specific items measured recognizing learning needs,
formulating learning goals, identifying relevant resources, sharing strategy, and evaluating outcomes. The reliability was 0.908.
A confirmatory factor analysis for all multi-item scales used in the study was conducted to verify the uniqueness of the four scales.
Principal components extraction with a Kaiser Normalization and rotated solution was used in the analysis. Results show four distinct
factors extracted with all items loading on the expected learning outcome scale.

3.2.3. Student satisfaction

Student satisfaction was measured using one question for each teaching pedagogy with the statement: “How would you describe
your overall satisfaction with the different teaching styles listed below?” Satisfaction was rated on a five point Likert scale with 1
being “very dissatisfied” to 5 being “very satisfied”.

3.3. Demographics

Six demographic variables were collected for additional insights into the participants. These were gender, age, year of college,
work experience, cumulative grade point average, and business major. Gender and cumulative grade point average were used as
control variables in the analysis.

3.4. Analysis

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses. Differences in perceived learning outcomes and
satisfaction were compared across the five learning pedagogies while controlling for gender and cumulative grade point average.

271
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

Both gender (Wilks Lambda = 0.984, F = 2.166, df = 6, 787, p = 0.044) and cumulative grade point average (Wilks Lamba = 0.983,
F = 2.293, df = 6, 787, p = 0.034) were significant in the model. Additional comparisons between lecture learning environment and
the other four learner-focused learning environments—problem based learning, service learning, flipped classroom, and project based
learning were conducted using a Bonferroni correction after significant differences were found in the MANOVA. For hypotheses on
perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction, only students who had experience with that particular teaching pedagogy were in-
cluded in the analysis.

4. Results

Hypothesis 1 tested if knowledge acquisition was perceived as higher in learner-focused pedagogies than in teacher-focused
pedagogy. This was partially supported (F = 2.86, p = 0.023). Project based learning (mean = 4.11, p = 0.026) was significantly
higher than lecture (mean = 3.95) on knowledge acquisition. Service learning (mean = 4.08, p = 0.25), problem based learning
(mean = 4.02, p = 0.999), and flipped classroom (mean = 4.06, p = 0.81) were not significantly different from lecture on knowl-
edge acquisition.
Hypothesis 2 tested whether problem solving skills were perceived as higher in learner-focused pedagogies than in teacher-
focused pedagogy. This hypothesis was partially supported (F = 3.78, p = 0.005). Only project based learning (mean = 4.13,
p = 0.003) resulted in higher perceived problem solving skills as compared to lecture (mean = 3.95). Problem based learning
(mean = 4.11, p = 0.165), service learning (mean = 4.00, p = 0.999), and flipped classroom (mean = 4.02, p = 0.999) were not
significantly different from lecture with regard to problem solving skills.
Hypothesis 3 tested if critical thinking skills were perceived as higher in learner-focused pedagogies than in teacher-focused
pedagogy. This hypothesis was not supported (F = 2.26, p = 0.061). No significant differences existed among the five teaching
pedagogies. Project based learning (mean = 4.09), problem based learning (mean = 4.03), service learning (mean = 4.04), and
flipped classroom (mean = 4.07) were not significantly different than lecture (mean = 3.95) with regard to critical thinking.
Hypothesis 4 tested if self-directed learning was perceived as higher in learner-focused pedagogies than in teacher-focused
pedagogy. This hypothesis was not supported (F = 1.98, p = 0.096). No significant differences existed among the five teaching
pedagogies. The mean values for the five pedagogies were: lecture (mean = 4.00), problem based learning (mean = 4.08), project
based learning (mean = 4.13), service learning (mean = 4.00), and flipped classroom (mean = 4.09).
Hypothesis 5 tested if student satisfaction was higher for learner-focused pedagogies as compared to teacher-focused pedagogies.
This hypothesis was partially supported. Project based learning (mean = 4.12, p = 0.004) was statistically significant and higher in
satisfaction than lecture (mean = 3.85). Service learning (mean = 4.00, p = 0.369), problem based learning (mean = 4.05,
p = 0.406) and flipped classroom (mean = 4.02, p = 0.783) were not significantly higher in satisfaction than lecture. Results for
hypothesis testing using MANOVA and tests for difference in mean values are displayed in Table 1.

5. Discussion

The focus of undergraduate business education has shifted from knowledge acquisition to developing practical skills and in-
creasing employability as the measure of teaching effectiveness. As the result of market pressures, institutions have put more pressure
on faculty to develop courses which are engaging, entertaining, and which emphasize marketable skills. Business education less and
less values traditional educational pedagogies which focus on reflection and conceptualization, to invoke Kolb (1984), by focusing
only on concrete experience and practice exclusively. Lecture as a pedagogical delivery method has developed a negative image over
the years (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Paul, 2015) in favor of pedagogies which are seen as delivering on learning skills.
So why do we not see significant differences in student satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes between lecture and all four
learner-centered methodologies? One explanation might be that the types of lectures given in 2015 are different from what is
characterized as a traditional teacher-centered lecture several decades ago. Lectures at the college we examined are not 60–90 min
monologues, but a mixture of passive (instruction) and active elements (exercises, case discussion, etc.). In many of these lecture-

Table 1
Multivariate analysis of variance, means of outcomes by teaching pedagogy.
Outcomes Teaching Pedagogy F-statistic p-value

Lecture Problem Based Learning Project Based Learning Service Learning Flipped Classroom

∗
Knowledge Acquisition 3.95 4.02 4.11 4.11 4.06 2.86 0.023
Problem Solving 3.95 4.11 4.13∗ 4.00 4.02 3.78 0.005
Critical Thinking 3.95 4.03 4.09 4.04 4.07 2.26 0.061
Self-Directed Learning 4.00 4.08 4.13 4.00 4.09 1.98 0.096
Student Satisfaction 3.86 4.05 4.12∗ 4.08 4.02 3.61 0.006

Significance levels compared to lecture: * < 0.05.

df = 4, 789 for all tests.
Control Variables: Gender: Wilks Lambda = 0.984, F = 2.166, df = 6, 787, p = 0.044.
GPA: Wilks Lamba = 0.983, F = 2.293, df = 6, 787, p = 0.034.

272
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

based classes, the activity is a project or problem that had a definitive end with an answer as opposed to an open-ended self-directed
ambiguous problem. Students are also accustomed to lecture delivery and that lecture requires less work in class. Our study is also
one of many that supports students perceive lecture as an effective teaching pedagogy.
A second explanation may be rooted in how students perceive higher education. Nixon et al. (2018) found that students chose
classes that do not have significant challenges. Classes that employ non-standard pedagogies and incorporate challenging tasks are
unacceptable. Students see higher education as a pathway to a better job and are highly risk adverse to any class which will jeo-
pardize their success in school and their employability. Our study supports these findings in that students favored project based
learning classes as those classes typically teach employable skills with minimum risk and an acceptable level of challenge.
In our efforts to develop more innovative and challenging curriculum, we have discounted that lecture has its place in higher
education. In many universities, lecture is no longer a monotone soliloquy but instead has become more Socratic in nature relying on
audience participation and discussion of key topics. We are not in any way suggesting that problem based learning, project based
learning, service learning, or flipped classroom do not have their place in the classroom. Nor are we advocating using solely one
pedagogy throughout a curriculum. Instead, all five pedagogies are effective in delivering the knowledge and skills necessary for
successful graduates. However, the effectiveness of these learner-focused pedagogies depends on whether it is the main instructing
method and how it is integrated with other pedagogies. Prior research has found that problem- and project based learning in business
classrooms augmented with lecture result in successful perceived learning outcomes (Garnjost & Brown, 2018). The critical com-
ponent to successful implementation is matching the pedagogy with course content, learning objectives, and teaching style and
delivering the course in a manner where students feel comfortable with taking risk.
Our study also opens the door to the discussion about what students want in a learning environment. Students are focused on the
ultimate outcome—employability. What students expect is a quality education in the form of knowledgeable faculty and intellectual
growth in their majors (Mark, 2013). The methods of delivering the quality education are not students’ uppermost concern. Uni-
versities need to recognize that who is teaching is more important than how the course is being taught, as student satisfaction hinges
on high quality instruction and what the student feels like they are getting out of the course (Johnson et al., 2014). High quality
instruction is the result of the faculty who is teaching. Faculty are a key component to producing satisfied student.
According to Dochy and others authors, previous knowledge, beliefs and conceptions are significant for learning, as learners
construct new knowledge on the basis of their existing knowledge (Dochy, 1992; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Therefore, it is up to
the students to design and implement the learning process. This approach is in line with the findings of Gruber et al. (1999) nearly
twenty years ago who summarized their findings addressing the gap between knowledge and action arguing, “the demand for
constructive activity of learners called forth by these (learner-centered) approaches must not be misunderstood as the demand for
dismissing any instructional efforts. In contrast, only the balance between construction and instruction allows for the acquisition of
applicable knowledge which may lead to successful action.”

5.1. Limitations and future directions for research

As with any research, the current research has its limitations. First, student perceptions of learning were measured using self-
reported data as opposed to using an objective measure of each of the learning outcomes. Student perceptions of learning may be
influenced by a variety of other factors which were not measured or controlled for in this study. For example, teaching ability of the
instructor for a course, experience of the faculty with a specific pedagogy, their grades in the course, and how much they enjoyed the
course may all influence their perceptions of learning. Additionally, the sample consisted of only students from one university.
Expanding the sample to other universities would increase the generalizability of the research.
As teacher-focused pedagogies are widely used in business education, future research needs to investigate in what types of classes
teacher-focused pedagogies are more perceived as effective and why they are perceived as such. Past research has focused more on
determining if a particular pedagogy is effective in delivering specific learning outcomes without taking into consideration how
students perceive the course. Future research should pair both learner- and teacher-focused pedagogies with courses to investigate
further the underlying reasons student are more satisfied with particular courses and pedagogies and why they perceived greater
learning in different environments.

6. Conclusion

With higher education becoming increasingly marketised, there is increasing pressure on faculty to adopt learner-focused ped-
agogies which will positively impact student satisfaction and students' perceived learning outcomes. Our study investigated the
differences in student satisfaction and students’ perceived learning outcomes across learner-focused pedagogies and lecture. Our
results show that only project based learning was perceived as more effective in increasing knowledge acquisition and problem
solving, and students were more satisfied with courses which employed a project based learning pedagogy. There was no significant
difference between lecture, service learning, problem based learning, and flipped classroom on student satisfaction or perceived
learning outcomes. Our extrapolation from these results (rooted in the results of Nixon et al. (2018)) is that students are looking to
improve their marketable skills while minimizing work outside their comfort zone by avoiding difficult challenges which could
negatively impact their overall educational standing.
The intent of our paper was to introduce to the discussion that using a specific pedagogy does not address the challenges of
meeting student expectations in a marketised environment. While students are concerned with their employability after graduation,
they also have learning expectations from their education. As faculty, if we forgo the intellectual model, we run the risk of business

273
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

education becoming vocational training. Instead, as both Tomlinson (2017) and O'Byrne and Bond (2014) suggest, education needs to
also embrace the intellectual model and be refocused on intellectual discourse. While marketisation may be a reality going forward,
faculty and their intellectual capital are a critical component of broadening the scope of business education.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.004.

References

Bamford, D., Karjalainen, K., & Jenavs, E. (2012). An evaluation of problem based assessment in teaching operations management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 32, 1493–1514.
Barrows, H. (2002). Is it truly possible to have such a thing as PBL? Distance Education, 23, 119–122.
Beachey, W. D. (2007). A comparison of problem based learning and traditional curricula in baccalaureate respiratory therapy education. Respiratory Care, 52,
1497–1506.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Atlanta, GA: ASEE National Conference Proceedings.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service‐learning and curricular engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 37–46.
Carlson, S. (2013). How to assess the real payoff of a college degree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, 32.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century
US workforce. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Dary, T., Prueter, B., Grinde, J., Grobschmidt, R., & Evers, T. (2010). High quality instruction that transforms: A guide to implementing quality academic service learning.
Madison WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. http://dpi.wi.gov/fscp/slhmpage.html.
DeShields, O. W., Jr., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg's two-factor
theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139.
Dochy, F. J. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning: The use of prior knowledge state tests and knowledge profiles. Utrecht: Lemma BV.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for
educational communications technology (pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Duque, L. C. (2014). A framework for analyzing higher education performance: Students' satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total
Quality Management, 25, 1–21.
Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE-life Sciences Education, 13, 453–468.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
24, 197–209.
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6,
63–71.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Expanding boundaries: Serving learning. Vol. 128. Retrieved from: http://
digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/128.
Gallagher, M. J., & McGorry, S. Y. (2015). Service learning and the capstone experience. International Advances in Economic Research, 21, 467–476.
Garnjost, P., & Brown, S. M. (2018). Undergraduate business students' perceptions of learning outcomes in problem based and faculty centered courses. The
International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 121–130.
Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32,
251–259.
Gruber, H., Mandl, H., & Renkl, A. (1999). Was lernen wir in Schule und Hochschule: Träges Wissen? Forschungsbericht Nr, 101 München, DE: LMU.
Hall, C., Swart, W., & Duncan, S. (2012). Balancing customer needs and standards in higher education. Quality Approaches in Higher Education, 3, 2–7.
Hart Research Associates (2015). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Liberal Education, 99.
Hmelo, C. E., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 401–422.
Johnson, Z. S., Cascio, R., & Massiah, C. A. (2014). Explaining student interaction and satisfaction: An empirical investigation of delivery mode influence. Marketing
Education Review, 24, 227–237.
Judson, K. M., & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from marketisation to marketing of higher education: The co-creation of value in higher education. Higher Education
Studies, 4(1), 51–67.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 212–218.
Kuruganti, U., Needham, T., & Zundel, P. (2012). Patterns and rates of learning in two problem based learning courses using outcome based assessment and ela-
boration theory. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3, 4.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31,
30–43.
Payscale.com (2016). Leveling up: 2016 workforce skills preparedness report. http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/job-skills.
Mark, E. (2013). Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 2–10.
Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into
consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287.
Nihlawi, R., El-Baz, H., & Gunn, C. (2017). Looking into the impact of flipped learning pedagogy on students' perceived learning experience in undergraduate
mathematics courses. Proceedings of ICERI2017 conference (pp. 5809–5819). Seville, Spain.
Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2018). Her majesty the student: Marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis) satisfactions of the student-consumer.
Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 927–943.
Orîndaru, A. (2015). Changing perspectives on students in higher education. Procedia Economics and Finance, 27, 682–691.
O'Byrne, D., & Bond, C. (2014). Back to the future: The idea of a university revisited. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 571–584.
Paul, A. M. (2015). Are college lectures unfair? The New York Times, 12, 2015 September.
Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service learning. Higher Education. Paper 148 http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/
slcehighered/148.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95,
123–138.
Rhodes, T. L. (Ed.). (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 105, 44.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 1, 9–20.
Selingo, J. (2015). The view from the top: What presidents think about financial sustainability, student outcomes, and the future of higher education. Vol. 4. The Chronicle of

274
P. Garnjost and L. Lawter The International Journal of Management Education 17 (2019) 267–275

Higher Education.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (2007). Faculty development: The challenge going forward. Peer Review, 9, 4–8.
Speck, B. W. (2001). Why service‐learning? New Directions for Higher Education, 2001, 3–13.
Stanley, T., & Marsden, S. (2012). Problem based learning: Does accounting education need it? Journal of Accounting Education, 30, 267–289.
Stork, D., Woodilla, J., & Brown, S. M. (2009). Where to make the charitable donations? A research, decision-making, and communication exercise. Proceedings of
Eastern Academy of Management, 2110–2135.
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450–467.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82–84.
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31, 357–442.
Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. The Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 11, 9–27.

275